AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AT the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 297 days in filing this revision petition against the order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai ( ''State Commission '' for short). In the application for condonation of delay, the petitioner Corporation has submitted that even though the communication about the impugned order dated 15.12.2008 was received by the petitioner on 31.1.2009, the delay in question was caused on account of seeking approval of the higher authorities to file the revision petition and in seeking approval for deposit of the decretal amount to enable the petitioner to file the revision petition. It is further submitted that respondent/complainant and her Counsel were side by side negotiating a compromise with the petitioner but eventually when they backed out from such compromise efforts, delay was caused during that period. It is submitted that the delay in question is neither intentional nor deliberate and the same may be condoned in the interest of justice. No dates have been furnished in regard to different reasons on account of which, the delay is reported to have taken place. Besides this, the reasons themselves are of very general nature and hence cannot be regarded as sufficient cause to explain the delay of 297 days in filing the revision petition. We are, therefore, not inclined to condone the delay and the revision petition can be dismissed on this ground alone. However, we have looked into the merits as well.
COMING to the merits of the case, the complaint in this case was filed by respondent herein, Smt. Gajarabai Balkrishna Parache against the petitioner who was opposite party before the District Forum. Her husband, namely, Balkrishna Parache who was employed with the OP/petitioner expired on 30.4.1988. After obtaining a Succession Certificate on 18.1.2006 from Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sangli to enable her to collect, receive and withdraw the family pension (plus allowances and arrears since date of death of Balkrishna Parache), the respondent approached the petitioner Corporation for release of arrears of pension of her deceased husband amounting to Rs. 2,44,960 as on 31.12.2005 along with arrears on account of provident fund, group insurance scheme, etc., as well as the family pensionw.e.f. the date of death of her husband. On refusal of the petitioner Corporation to release the arrears of the family pension and other dues, the consumer complaint in question was filed by the respondent. On considering the documents and evidence placed on record and after hearing the parties, the District Forum allowed the complaint of the respondent in terms of the following order dated 12.2.2008: "1. The respondent must pay the pending accrued amount of Rs. 2,44,960 of the pension to the Petitioner (Rupees two lakh forty four thousand nine hundred sixty only) along with an interest of 7% reckoned from 31.12.2005 until the day of payment. 2. The Respondents must also pay the family pension fund amount decided according to Administrative Resolu-tion No. A.V./29/85-86 dated 2.5.1985 to the said Petitioner. 3. As compensation to the financial and mental agony inflicted upon the said Petitioner by the Respondent and towards the cost of this petition, the said Respondent is hereby directed to pay additionally an amount of Rs. 5,000 (Rupees five thousand to the said Petitioner. 4. If the Respondent fails to pay the Petitioner, the aforesaid amount, within 25.3.2008, then the Petitioner is eligible to take action against them under the relevant provisions of Consumer Protection Act by filing a Recovery Petition against the said Respondents. "
The petitioner Corporation challenged the aforesaid order of the District Forum in appeal before the State Commission which dismissed the same upholding the order of the District Forumvide its impugned order dated 15.12.2008 against which the present revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.
WE have heard Mr. Vijay Kumar, Advocate, learned Counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the record placed before us as well as the original record of the District Forum which was called by us. None has appeared on behalf of the respondent in spite of service of notice on her. The short legal issue which has arisen for our consideration in this revision petition is as to whether, in spite of production before the petitioner Corporation a valid Succession Certificate in her favour entitling her to collect, receive and withdraw the amounts due to her deceased husband, the action of the petitioner Corporation to refuse payment of arrears of pension and other amounts payable to her husband was legally sustainable. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the respondent was not nominated by her late husband to receive the amount of family pension after his death, she was asked by the petitioner to produce a Succession Certificate in her favour. Later on, the respondent applied for family pension on 22.5.2006 along with Succession Certificate in pursuance of which, she was granted family pension to the tune of Rs. 1,913 per monthw.e.f. 1.6.2006. It is further submitted that the respondent,vide her consent letter dated 2.6.2006 addressed to the petitioner, gave her consent to start the payment of family pension to her from the month of the consent letter and she also relinquished her right to claim the arrears of the pension. In view of this, the question of payment of any arrears of the pension to the respondent did not arise. Another contention raised by learned Counsel was that the respondent had filed a civil suit before Civil Court, Sangli praying for grant of family pension but the said civil suit was dismissed by the Civil Courtvide its order dated 6.4.2004. It was, therefore, submitted that the State Commission erred in failing to appreciate that the respondent had waived her claim to get the arrears of pension and hence she was estopped from claiming the same. Besides this, the decision of the Civil Court rejecting her suit for family pensionvide its order dated 6.4.2004 would also operate as res judicata in respect of her consumer complaint before the Forum since the subject matter of the consumer dispute raised before the Fora below was the same as already decided by the Civil Court.
WE have carefully considered the contentions raised by learned Counsel for the petitioner. On the face of it, the plea of res judicata taken by him would appear rather contradictory keeping in view the later decision of the petitioner Corporation itself to grant the family pension to the respondentw.e.f. 1.6.2006. In any case, it is to be noted that at the instance of the petitioner itself, the respondent approached the competent Civil Court at Sangli for issuance of Succession Certificate in her favour and same was granted to her on 18.1.2006. This Succession Certificate was granted to her by the competent Civil Court in spite of earlier order of another Civil Court passed on 6.4.2004 which is relied upon by the petitioner. In view of this, the Succession Certificate provides the legal basis for grant of family pension and other arrears belonging to respondent ''s late husband as mentioned in the Succession Certificate because legally a Succession Certificate becomes effective immediately after the death of the person who is succeeded. We, therefore, reject the plea of estoppel taken by the petitioner ''s Counsel. As regards the consent given by the respondentvide her affidavit dated 28.6.2006, it cannot come in the way of release of arrears of the pension and other dues belonging to her late husband in her favour in accordance with the terms of the Succession Certificate because prima facie the consent letter does not seem to be voluntary and might have been given by her because of her financial constraints. After all, she is an old lady who is poor and unemployed and did not have any other significant source of income to sustain her. In view of these circumstances, it is obvious that the consent letter in question relinquishing her right to claim the arrears of pension was ''obtained '' rather than ''given '' by her and we do not see any reason or justification as to why a public authority like the petitioner Corporation should make it a basis to deny her the legitimate dues due to her as per law. In the circumstances, we agree with the view taken by the State Commission while dismissing the appeal of the petitioner and upholding the order of the District Forum and do not find any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error which would call for our interference with it. The revision petition, therefore, stands dismissed both on the grounds of limitation as well as on merits but with no order as to costs. Revision Petition dismissed.